On 7/31/07, Matthieu Riou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 7/31/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > +1 from me.
> >
> > Some of the same comments on the previous M7a release still apply, eg,
> > its
> > preferred to have a separate DISCLAIMER file, having all licenses in a
> > single LICENSE file, and have src and binary distro's unpack into
> > different
> > folders.
>
>
> Actually I was wondering about this recommendation of having all (non ASL)
> license files for dependencies in a *single* LICENSE file. It seems to me
> that it's a maintenance nightmare when you have a lot of dependencies (very
> long file, you have to do a search to find anything, checking what could be
> missing takes a looong time). I'd rather have all the specific licenses each
> in there file reproduced side by side with the library the license is
> applied on (with similar namings, i.e. dom4j-1.3.LICENSE) and a simple
> pointer in the main LICENSE file ("licenses for each dependency library are
> reproduced in the lib directory along with the library").
>
> So is there a legal justification behind this that I missed? And sorry if
> I'm rehashing a subject that has already been discussed in the past :)
>
> Matthieu
>I'll have to defer to others for a definitive answer sorry as I'm just repeating previous review comments. I can point to http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html which says: "...you should append their license(s) to the LICENSE file at the top of the distribution..." And as an example point to: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/LICENSE ...ant
